Thanks To 'Fight For $15' Minimum Wage, McDonald's Unveils Job-Replacing Self-Service Kiosks
- Thread starter RickyBobby26
- Start date
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
A person can be malnourished and obese. Exactly why somebody eats themselves into obesity is not clear. One thing is certain, an obese person is not happy about their condition. They don't need a skinny person to tell them they are fat either. There almost certainly isn't one reason for this epidemic either. There is interesting physiology behind the hunger signal that has nothing to do with a person's weight or income but do have a lot to do with what a person is eating. Sodas and burgers are low cost calories compared to vegetables, they offer quick satisfaction, no cooking required. What follows after eating a meal like that is a quick sensation of fullness but after blood sugar spikes, a person feels hungry again even when they've just consumed 2000 calories for less than ten bucks. So, first off, you are wrong that a fat person is not hungry. They aren't starving but that's not the same thing. It's not as simple as saying we have plenty of food or no poor people, look at all the fat people.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the republican party's president elect wants muslims to wear special identifying badges and is passing laws forcing women to have funerals for miscarriages.
fat gutted neo-nazi.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
true that
I'll also add that centrists need the to team up with the left unless they are happy with a extreme right wing Republican dominated government.
Last edited:
Indagrow
Well-Known Member
Yeah dude can think whatever the fuck he wants
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so are you still calling anyone you perceive to be lazy by a racial slur designed to denigrate black people?
Indagrow
Well-Known Member
Not as much to be honest these days, as I had mentioned before it's the diction of my area, and was learned from those I so offended directly. Again as I had said before I had no idea I was racist until you had pointed it out.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Didn't 8 years of trying to "reach across the aisle" show you that's the wrong direction to go in?
Obama took office in 2009, TEA party was established and wrecked the midterms, Republicans ran a campaign of complete obstructionism to cripple the government since he became president, and now they've won in 2016 because of the quality of the candidate the Democrats have chosen to run primarily, but also because they didn't do enough for the middle-class when Obama was in office. Americans largely see the Democratic Party as the party for Wall Street, so it makes it that much easier for a Republican to run on a populist message, even if he's a buffoon.
I think we need a strong, aggressive progressive Democratic Party. We are on the right side of the issues, the American people are with us, the reason the party loses elections is because they've shifted to representing corporate interests instead of unions and working class people. They take up identity politics issues that don't really matter to the average voter (which again isn't to say that those issues don't matter). People want their wages to go up, their healthcare and education costs to go down, they want a stable economy, they want investments into infrastructure, trips to the Moon and Mars and beyond, condemnation of torture and unconstitutional prisons, an end to the private, for profit prison industry and the war on drugs, protection of LGBT rights, campaign finance reform and much more. The American people support all of this, they just need strong candidates to push these things and take a page out of the Republican playbook and not take 'No!' for an answer!
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about reaching across the aisle. The GOP is so far to the right that centrists look progressive by comparison.
What I am in agreement with @churchhaze about is that centrists and progressives need each other to reverse trends. I think you are saying as much when you talk about de-emphasizing identity politics in favor of emphasizing social and economic concerns of the all in the working class with appropriate attention given to improving economies in the mid-west and rust belt.
Do you think that the policies proposed by the far left are the answer to the far right? If so, I'm interested in what you have to say. I will say that whatever is brought forward as policies for a progressive change in this country has to meet approval of a majority in the majority of states to be successful.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So how could someone like Buck and myself work together to reverse these trends?
He seems as adamantly as ever to continue to support centrist, establishment candidates that can't win elections. I'm completely unwilling to give candidates like that my support unless they move to the left and/or denounce their establishment ties
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What are the "centrist, establishment" policies of these candidates that you object to? What candidates do you support and how are their policies different?
The election of Trump was a reaction to the status quo. While I think Trump was not honest about his attack on the status quo and is now filling his cabinet with people who are most clearly establishment types, I think the mid west and rust belt voters were more voting against continuing with Obama's economy and social agendas rather than voting for Trump. I'm interested in learning more about the people and policies that can move our society forward and especially interested in progressive policies that would be popular with working classes across the country including the mid-west and rust belt.
I think the south is dead to any progressive or centrist policy agenda and so, again, not interested in making deals with people who want to build that fucking wall, use torture for unknown reasons on terrorists and especially promote an isolationist and segregated society.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The policies that disproportionately benefit corporate America at the expense of the American people
An example would be the Trans-Pacific-Partnership
I support progressive politicians. Their policies are different from establishment politicians in that they actually represent the American people's interests instead of just giving it lip service for the paycheck and potential influence.
I agree. They were reluctantly voting for Trump, which makes the loss that much worse
More affordable healthcare, cheaper/better education, universal college, legal weed and an end to the drug war, increased minimum wage, overtime pay, paid maternity leave, LGBT rights, abortion rights, etc. these are the things normal, middle-class people care about, most voters care about. If Democrats supported what the American people support, they would win. They don't because they can't because the Democratic party is currently compiled of 98% establishment shills who are beholden to their corporate donors. Their corporate donors require them to support things like the TPP in order for them to get funding for their reelection bids. The American people look at NAFTA, see how bad that turned out to be, hear Donald Trump's message of "Yo! FUCK NAFTA!" and 9% of Democrats support him!
Agreed
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
prepare your anus hole, because people in maine, minnesota, wisconsin, michigan, ohio, iowa, new hampshire and elsewhere are all for that.
well, mainly the rural, white, uneducated types.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Some things just can't be negotiated. Not by me. Segregation and racist policies are not something that I can vote for. But really, Obama won most or all of those states so we aren't talking about a majority of hard line racists like the southern white vote.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
In California, are there any candidates that you would say align with your list of important policies? Nationally? Other than Sanders, that is.The policies that disproportionately benefit corporate America at the expense of the American people
An example would be the Trans-Pacific-Partnership
I support progressive politicians. Their policies are different from establishment politicians in that they actually represent the American people's interests instead of just giving it lip service for the paycheck and potential influence.
I agree. They were reluctantly voting for Trump, which makes the loss that much worse
More affordable healthcare, cheaper/better education, universal college, legal weed and an end to the drug war, increased minimum wage, overtime pay, paid maternity leave, LGBT rights, abortion rights, etc. these are the things normal, middle-class people care about, most voters care about. If Democrats supported what the American people support, they would win. They don't because they can't because the Democratic party is currently compiled of 98% establishment shills who are beholden to their corporate donors. Their corporate donors require them to support things like the TPP in order for them to get funding for their reelection bids. The American people look at NAFTA, see how bad that turned out to be, hear Donald Trump's message of "Yo! FUCK NAFTA!" and 9% of Democrats support him!
Agreed
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Jesus blesses Chick Fil A
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Who remembers the anti-War Democrat? Or the Occupy Wallstreet Democrat? what happened to them?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
we're all just sitting around, waiting for mattis to drive us into war with iran under the flimsiest of pretenses.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The people who participated remember. I remember the Occupy Wallstreet protests. It never coalesced as a movement. But it rippled into the election this year. Anti trade policies for one. Smear campaign for Clinton's speaking fees from Wall Streeters had an effect with the former Occupy crowd. I think.